Fewer Choices and Attention

Description

Give them only a few choices, rather than a larger number of options. Two or three
alternatives are often ideal.

If you can, assess them first and then give them a custom-selected subset of
options. These may be equally interesting for them, or may include just the
option you want them to choose plus one or two other alternatives that are
less desirable.

When selecting alternatives, carefully about how they will compare the
choices against one another and against other reference standards they may use.

Example

A shoe retailer simplifies their storefront, going from a
clutter of many types of shoes to a selected few products, each displayed with
care.

A sales person offers a person a red shirt or a yellow
shirt, even though they carry many other hues.

Discussion

Our evolutionary past has led us to constantly scan our field of vision to
watch for opportunities and especially threats. The more things we see, the
greater the effort we have to put into this constant scanning, and the less attention we can
consequently pay to
any one thing.

When there are a number of things in front of us, we have a choice in which
one to look more closely at. All else being equal, we will tend to keep scanning
everything and not settle our attention for long on any one item. When we are
unsure, we tend to
choose by comparing items in pairs. With a wide choice, that is a lot of
comparisons!

When we have multiple choices, sometimes we worry that we will make the wrong
choice, and so get trapped by anticipated regret as we think to a future where
we feel bad about having chosen badly.

If the number of things to look at is reduced, we will naturally spend more
time attending to each of the few choices we have. We are also more likely to
choose one of them.

Stephen Worchel and colleagues offered subjects cookies in a jar. One jar had
ten cookies in and the other jar had two. Subjects preferred the cookies from
the jar with two in, even though they were the same cookies.

Iyengar and
Lepper presented 24 or 6 varieties of jam in a gourmet store on different days.
The larger arrays attracted more people, but they tasted about the same and
bought far less. 30% of people shown 6 varieties bought a jar. Only 3% shown the
24 jars bought one.

This brings
up a useful additional point: larger arrays create initial attract, at least.
They give a first impression of being able to satisfy any need. But when the
person gets up close, the question of where their attention should go next may
be confounded.

So what?

When people must choose, minimize the choice they have to make. You can use a
wide choice as a marketing ploy, but quickly get to smaller numbers when they
come to choosing. Also, design the choice with an understanding of how they may
make comparisons with the options (and other things such as competing products),
such that the choice you want is clearly the best choice).

See also

Iyengar S.S. and Lepper M.R. (2000). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One
Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 6, 995-1006

Worchel, S., Lee, J., and Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on
ratings of object value.Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 906-914